by Bart Schultz
persons; and even, perhaps, with approval, if the government of the conquerors
was shown by experience to be not designedly oppressive or unjust; since the
benefits of completer internal peace and order, improved industry, enlarged op-
portunities of learning a better religion and a truer science, would be taken – and,
on the whole, I think, rightly taken – to compensate for the probable sacrifice of
the interests of the conquered to those of the conquerors, whenever the two came
into collision. (EP )
Indeed, it is in this context that Sidgwick warmly recounts some of the
genuinely “remunerative” factors involved in colonization:
[T]here are sentimental satisfactions, derived from justifiable conquests, which
must be taken into account, though they are very difficult to weigh against the
material sacrifices and risks. Such are the justifiable pride which the cultivated
members of a civilised community feel in the beneficent exercise of dominion, and
in the performance by their nation of the noble task of spreading the highest kind of civilisation; and a more intense though less elevated satisfaction – inseparable from patriotic sentiment – in the spread of the special type of civilisation distinctive of their nation, communicated through its language and literature, and through the
tendency to imitate its manners and customs which its prolonged rule, especially
if on the whole beneficent, is likely to cause in a continually increasing degree.
(EP )
This is “spiritual expansion,” such as occurred, he suggests, with the
French in Algeria. The contrast is supposedly with the “physical expan-
sion which takes place when the conquered region is so thinly populated
P: IJD
cB.xml
CY/Schultz
February ,
:
Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe
as to afford room for a considerable immigration of the conquerors.”
Unfortunately, Sidgwick rather glosses over the ways in which this might
be associated with unjustifiable as well as justifiable conquests, and in-
stead turns his attention back to the more common denotation of the
term “colonisation,” given earlier, observing that the “rational motives
to colonisation, in this narrower sense, are partly the same as those that
prompt to the conquest of semi-civilised countries.” (EP ).
In a revealing note, he admits that it is often difficult “to estimate the
force of the desire for national expansion, – including the desire of culti-
vated minds to spread the special type of civilisation which they enjoy –
as distinguished from the more primitive impulse to the amelioration of
the emigrants’ condition.” He goes on to discuss the peculiar relation-
ship between Great Britain and the United States, observing that despite
their economic and political rivalry, “if we derive any satisfaction from the
expansion of the English race, and of the English type of civilisation as
communicated through its language, literature, and law, the prosperous
growth of the community inhabiting the United States must be regarded
as the most important means to this end – and perhaps more important
than if the colony had remained in political connexion with England.” In
one of his better forecasts, he explains that “if any existing language should
ever become the one common language of civilised man it will probably be
English: and the chief cause of this result, if it should be brought about,
will probably be the growth and commercial pre-eminence of the United
States.” (EP )
Thus, spiritual expansion may actually be at odds with the expansion
or maintenance of the colonial empire and at any rate needs to be distin-
guished from more narrowly self-interested aims. And it is at this juncture
that Sidgwick finally addresses in a more direct fashion some of the ex-
plosive racial questions arising out of colonial expansion:
It remains to speak of the management of the relations between civilised settlers
and the uncivilised tribes inhabiting the district into which immigration takes
place – commonly called the ‘aborigines.’ It is not without hesitation that I venture to touch this question, as I can only treat it in a very brief and general way; while any student of the history of European colonisation must be profoundly impressed
with its difficulty. What a well-informed writer [Merivale], by no means unduly
sentimental, called the ‘wretched details of the ferocity and treachery which have
marked the conduct of civilised men in their relations with savages,’ forms one of
the most painful chapters in modern history; all the more painful from the frequent
P: IJD
cB.xml
CY/Schultz
February ,
:
Colors
evidence it gives of benevolent intentions, and even beneficent efforts, on the part
of the rulers of the superior race. At present in England there is a general agreement that the wellbeing of the uncivilised first-comers, found in regions colonised by
civilised men, should be earnestly and systematically kept in view by the governors
of these latter; and that the ‘aborigines’ should be adequately compensated for any
loss that they may suffer from the absorption of their territory – and ultimately
of themselves – by the expanding civilised societies. It is therefore permissible to
hope that in the future some closer approach may be made to the realisation of
this ideal than has been made in the past. (EP –)
At least Sidgwick fretted over this subject a good deal. In a letter to
Bryce, complaining about his slow progress, he explained that “there is
a horrid new chapter on ‘Principles of External Policy’ which has been
giving me trouble for weeks: I am trying to find something judicious to
say on the treatment of ‘aborigines’ but have not yet succeeded.” Bryce
responded: “The greatest difficulty about the aborigines question seems
to be the question of their lands – as to which there are many American
[duties?] but none that clear up the practical perplexities of reconciling
justice with the ‘progress of civilization.’” (CWC)
As Sidgwick sees it, one central issue concerns the difference between
colonies “where the manual labour can be and will be supplied by the
civilised race” and those where “it can only supply capital and superior
kinds of labour.”
In the first case the main difficulties of the problem are likely to be transient;
the incoming tide of civilised immigration will gradually modify or submerge the
barbarism of the aborigines; so that ultimately the question, how to deal with such
of them as may survive without becoming really fit for civilised work, will sink
into a part of the general question of dealing with the incapable and recalcitrant
elements found in all civilised communities. But in its early stages the collision
of races is likely to be more intense in colonies of this cl
ass; since the process of settlement inevitably involves more disturbance of the economic conditions of the
life of the aborigines.
On the other hand, in colonies where the superior race does not supply the
manual labour, the difficulties of governing a community composed of elements
very diverse in intellectual and moral characteristics must be expected to last
indefinitely longer; but there is no stage at which the conflict of interests need be quite so acute as in the former. (EP )
Sidgwick believes that the former case has been more important his-
torically, but that “its importance is rapidly diminishing, and in most of
P: IJD
cB.xml
CY/Schultz
February ,
:
Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe
the territories open to the future expansion of civilised European States,
manual labour is likely to be mainly performed by non-European races.”
But he also tries to downplay the significance of his remarks, explaining
that he will not discuss either case in detail, but only “indicate briefly
the nature of the problems that arise and the principles prima facie ap-
plicable to them, in accordance with the general view of politics taken
in the present treatise.” Astonishingly, he actually goes on to say that he
will “not attempt to distinguish between the international duty and the
interest of the civilised nation aiming at expansion,” because “here, as
elsewhere, duty and interest are mostly coincident.” Still, he would have
it understood that he has in view “as ultimate end, the aggregate happiness
of all the human beings concerned, civilised and uncivilised – native or
imported.” If it “does not seem possible – even if it were desirable – to
check the expansion of civilised Europe,” then “the problem of regulat-
ing and governing composite social aggregates, with a civilised minority
superimposed on a semi-civilised majority, must be regarded as one of
the most important proposed for European statesmanship in the proxi-
mate future.” (EP –) With this statement, the growth of federation
starts to look more worrisome, as a way of regulating the behavior of the
“civilised minority superimposed.”
And now, having thus done his best to cast a soft light on the hard realities
of European expansion, stress the importance of the issue, and confess the
inadequacies of his treatment of it, Sidgwick finally brings himself to
some broader statements of principle. On the topic of the “civilised” State
claiming supreme control over the territory in question:
It would be going too far to say that no exercise of power over these latter is
justifiable, unless the general consent of the persons subjected to it may be pre-
sumed from agreements formally made by their chiefs or on some other adequate
ground. But we may say that no serious interference of the civilised government
with the aborigines should take place without such evidence of consent, except
under circumstances which afford a special justification for it; – as (e.g.) when the civilised State has been victorious in a war provoked by the aggression of the inferior race, or when the interference is necessary for the security of its own subjects in the exercise of rights that they may fairly claim, or to protect the natives from
the evils of intercourse with the most lawless and degraded elements of civilised
society. Further, the claim of sovereignty should not be understood to carry with
it any obligation to interfere with the laws and customs of the aborigines, even
when opposed to civilised morality. Such interference should be regulated by an
P: IJD
cB.xml
CY/Schultz
February ,
:
Colors
unprejudiced regard of the social wellbeing of the tribes subjected to it; which
might be seriously impaired by the sudden abolition even of pernicious customs.
(EP )
Government may also have to control the sale and purchase of lands,
in order to prevent the aborigines from being taken advantage of. Even
when the aborigines may not have conceptualized their “property rights,”
compensation should be made “for the loss of the utilities in the way of
hunting, fishing, etc., which they have been accustomed to derive from
such lands.”
As for further restrictions on the free interaction between settlers and
aborigines, these need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. The famil-
iar examples of the “prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the
prohibition of the sale of firearms” being in principle defensible, Sidgwick
goes further, suggesting that “in some cases a more complete separation
of races, and a more thorough tutelage of the inferior race, would seem to
be temporarily desirable.” But he hastens to add that it is “hardly likely
that this kind of artificial isolation can ever be more than partially success-
ful,” and that “such measures should generally be regarded as essentially
transitional, and only adopted – if at all – in order better to prepare the
aborigines for complete social amalgamation with the colonising race.” It
is in this connection that he allows, in the footnote quoted earlier, that
there has been no proof adequate to support the conclusion that “the so-
cial amalgamation of two races would be debasing to the superior race,”
though if this were clearly demonstrable, permanent forms of separation
would be justifiable. (EP )
Furthermore, the government must ensure that the punishment of
crimes against the settlers proceed “within the limits of strict justice,”
though the crucial object is less to achieve “pedantic adhesion to the forms
of civilised judicial procedure” and more to “impress the intellect of the
aborigines with the relation between offence and punishment.” On the
matter of education, however, Sidgwick is insistent that the aborigines are
owed much more than mere “industrial education.” The educational task
should include all kinds of instruction required to fit the inferior race to share the life of civilised mankind. In particular, though the religion of the settlers should
not be compulsorily imposed on the natives, every encouragement should be given
to the effort of missionaries to teach it. Experience seems to show that the potency
of such teaching as an instrument of civilisation varies very much in different
P: IJD
cB.xml
CY/Schultz
February ,
:
Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe
cases, but few will doubt the desirability of allowing full scope to its application.
(EP )
Finally:
One of the most indisputable services that – as we may hope – the expansion of
civilised States is d
estined to confer on uncivilised humanity is the abolition of
the evils of enslavement, and of the wars and raids that have enslavement for their
object; and, ultimately, of the condition of slavery. But it may often be expedient
that this latter result should be only gradually attained: while, on the other hand,
even where the status of slavery is formally excluded by law, special restrictions
on freedom of contract between natives and settlers are likely to be required in
the case of contracts of service; since, if such contracts are left unrestricted, there is some risk that the inferior race may be brought too completely into the power
of private employers. This point is of course peculiarly important in the case of
colonies in which the superior race cannot or will not undertake the main part
of the manual work required: in this case the demand of the capitalist employer
for a steady supply of reliable labour led modern civilisation in its earlier stage
back to the institution of slavery in an extreme form: and prompts even now to
longing aspirations after some system of compulsory labour, which shall have
the economic advantages of slavery without its evils. But I know no ground for
thinking that such a system can be devised: and should accordingly deprecate any
attempt to approximate to it. I do not therefore infer – as some have inferred – that contracts of long duration ought to be prohibited altogether; but only that they
ought to be carefully supervised and closely watched. The need for this vigilance
arises equally – it may be even greater – when the labourers in question are not
natives, but aliens belonging to a lower grade of civilisation; at the same time there are strong economic reasons for introducing labour from abroad in colonies of
this class, where the natives are either not sufficiently numerous or wanting in
industrial capacity. (EP –)
Indeed, Sidgwick insists that in
regulating the relations between aborigines and settlers, the care of Government
will be specially needed to prevent the interests of the former from being dam-
aged through the occupation of land by the latter. We may lay down that the
aborigines should never be deprived of any definite rights of property without full
compensation; and that, so far as possible, such rights should be only ceded volun-
tarily. I cannot, indeed, hold that compulsory transfer is in principle inadmissable; since I cannot regard savages as having an absolute right to keep their hunting-grounds from agricultural use, any more than an agricultural occupant in a civilised
